November 15, 2012

"Now everything is kept in the cloud on Google and Yahoo's servers," says Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the ACLU. "That quirk of [The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986] has become hugely important for Americans' privacy." Once you've opened an email or your Facebook account, you've provided your personal information to a third party. The government can then ask that third party—Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Friendster, or whatever—for your information, and they don't necessarily need a warrant. The Constitution protects you from unreasonable search and seizure by the government. It doesn't stop third parties from sharing personal information you willingly give them. Likewise, there's no warrant needed to acquire the IP addresses—unique identifiers that can usually be traced to specific geographical locations—of people accessing those email accounts. According to the Wall Street Journal, that's exactly how the FBI figured out Broadwell was behind the allegedly harassing emails that sparked the investigation that uncovered the Petraeus affair.

That's not all. All your emails that are more than six months old are legally treated as online "storage" and accessible with a court order or a subpoena to the online service provider. The providers can say no, but usually they don't...

This is why we are not suppoed to use regular email for patient communications. We have to subscribe to "secure messaging services" instead. I always wonder, though, what those secure companies do with the data.

You're the party of government espionage, violations of the 4th Amendment, kill lists, drone-strike oops killings of civilians. Will we find out the ban on torture was bogus?

It's your legacy. Own it.

And, yeah, Bush did it to. That's right; that's why I couldn't stand Bush. The difference is, some of us were against it in principle, but you only were against it for party reasons. You're fine having fellow progressives assuming these almighty powers.

I have always taken it as gospel that anything you put on the internet can be accessed by 4 billion people. I dont have a "social network" like facebook for that reason alone--but without some social network emails are always accessible, and cannot be deleted. Think before you hit the send button.

"That's not all. All your emails that are more than six months old are legally treated as online "storage" and accessible with a court order or a subpoena to the online service provider. The providers can say no, but usually they don't..."

I have always taken it as gospel that anything you put on the internet can be accessed by 4 billion people. I dont have a "social network" like facebook for that reason alone--but without some social network emails are always accessible, and cannot be deleted. Think before you hit the send button.

To be clear here, one needs to separate the two different elements of the story.

The contents of the email have more protection than the header info. This has always been the case. The Police, and various government agencies, depending on local law have regularly been able to access the addresses on letters you send/receive without opening the contents. Phone companies regularly share with police the sorts of info you see on your phone bill. calling number, minutes, called number. that's the basis for thousands of alabi's and murder mysteries.

The IP header of an email msg is no different.

PS: encrypting the email does not encrypt the routing headers.

PPS: that is the underlying basis of an intel speciality called "traffic analysis". w/o knowing the contents, who talks to whom, when and how much?

I know you hate all of that stuff. You just never primaried Obama, never used Congress to investigate Obama and never considered voting against Obama over it because Obama is so dreamy. Voting for a black man is so much important that civil liberties.

Forget it. Liberals have no moral capital left on those issues period. They proved this year that they don't care about them enough to even ask the President to explain himself much less hold him accountable. Sending a check to the ACLU is not like Lourdes for moral cripples. It doesn't excuse you. Sorry.

Re the ALCU--I am glad such an organization exists--I only wish there were more of them. Regretablt, IMO, the ALCU does have a progressive streak, but they have joined cases where conservatives were involved. I am not one to throw the baby out with bath water.

All your emails that are more than six months old are legally treated as online "storage" and accessible with a court order

You mean, like our houses can be invaded by a court order?

Why would anybody expect our emails to be more secure than our houses? That's an absurd privacy argument.

The Constitution protects you from unreasonable search and seizure by the government. It doesn't stop third parties from sharing personal information you willingly give them.

I think e-mail is exactly analogous to a phone call. That's an easy and obvious call. The government should have to get a court order in order to access your private email accounts and it would shock me if that was not in fact the case.

You are not "providing your information" to google in a g-mail any more than you are providing your information to Verizon in a phone call.

And putting something up on facebook is also an incredibly easy call. It's not invasion of privacy for the government to look you up on facebook. It doesn't have anything to do with privacy. It's holding people accountable for the speech they make in a public forum. Duh!

I think google searches is a tougher call. As long as it's legal for google to keep and store the information, then it should be legal for the government to ask for it. So if we want to protect our internet searches as "private," we have to first outlaw the corporate collection and use of this data. I think that's a tricky issue, while the e-mail and facebook issues are quite easy.

Your citation of the ACLU--and what they've done to oppose much of the Obama-Bush assault on the Constitution doesn't absolve the people to whom I specifically addressed my comments: "Obama Progressives."

In other words, I am not indicting all "progressives," only those who gave Obama the power to do these things.

While we're on the subject of the ACLU, however, have they done anything in defense of the "Innocence of Muslims" guy, now languishing in jail.

Oh right--that wasn't about free expression. Same as Putin and "P****y Riot."

Obama ordered the assasination of an American citizen including his 17 year old son, outside of a combat zone in a country Yeman that we have a bilateral agreement with that would have gone and arrested him had we asked.

That is your record liberals. Bush never assassinated an American citizen. Obama did. And liberals cheered him on and talked about how tough he was. Assassination was a winner with his base.

You own that record Shiloh and the rest of you. Scream Fox news all you want. But when it mattered and your side was doing it, you were on board with it all.

Fox's expected deflection aside, let the record show Fox did not address Homeland Security "bureaucracy" which was enacted in the Bush43 administration.

11/15/12 9:14 AM

Fr Martin Fox said...

Obama progressives:

You voted for this. You own it.

You're the party of government espionage, violations of the 4th Amendment, kill lists, drone-strike oops killings of civilians. Will we find out the ban on torture was bogus?

It's your legacy. Own it.

And, yeah, Bush did it to. [sic] That's right; that's why I couldn't stand Bush. The difference is, some of us were against it in principle, but you only were against it for party reasons. You're fine having fellow progressives assuming these almighty powers.

Calypso Facto said...Check out the CATO institute, for one other very vocal and effective advocate of privacy. Or virtually any other libertarian-leaning organization.

I will give you vocal, but not effective. It is the ACLU's law suits that bring abuses to light and actually produce changes. The law suits are critical. All the position papers in the world are just so much hot air. The only high profile law suit the CATO institute is engaged in is one with the Koch brothers.

When the ACLU cares about second amendment and property rights they might be worthy of respect. But when it comes down to government power versus the little guy, the ACLU loves the government provided it is just taking property or guns.

We are all at risk from the government, Thomas Hobbes notwithstanding. The government does, IMO, not care what your political orientation is--only if your orienation poses a threat the government's power.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God. Matthew 5:9.

Indeed!

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Here's an interesting, little known fact. The "black bag" jobs that the FBI carried out were first done against the Liberty Lobby and the Bund organizations and were done at the direction of Roosevelt......I think Big Brother is much more likely to be spied on than John Q. Public. As such, expect Big Brother to rally around the ACLU on this issue......I don't know whether emails are the equivalent of a phone conversation or a conversation in a public place. Is there settled law on this?.....I don't think it's shocking that the CIA director had an affair, but you'd think he would have more craft in its concealment.

The lawyer for the FBI agent in the case says the "shirtless photo" was a joke the agent sent his friend, Mrs. Kelley, several years ago.It is thus not purtinent to anything, and it is hardly something either the agent or Mrs. Kelley would volunteer at this time, if they even remembered it without being prodded.

So, how did this photo come to light, and why was its existence disseminated throughout the MSM?

Roger J. said...IMO opinion, flawed as it might be, we are now all Winston Smiths irrespective of our political orientations.

Not many people would argue with this. Information technology has proven to have facist tendencies. No government anywhere has made much effort to resist the allure of easy surveillance. I largely support efforts to use this technology against governments, such as wikileaks, but they haven't been very effective in producing better privacy controls for We the people.

Reasonable man--we can agree on this proposition, I think. People on the left are equally at risk as are people on the right. I read your comment as concurrence--so we are into the realm of trying fix things, and unfortunately, I have no easy fixes. I think the ACLU is a good thing but there isnt enough of them. And I really dont know how to rectify the situation.

Reasonable Man--would take issue on one point: "facist tendencies" Facists and left wing dicatorships all thrive on control. Any threat to the prevailing political ideology will be a threat. You have as much to fear from a dicatorship of the left, as you do from a dictatorship of the left.

Whatever. CATO is a frequent, effective (in front of Congress and in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court), and CONSISTENT supporter of individual liberty and privacy. If you prefer the cherry-picked confrontations of the ACLU that's your prerogative, but there are plenty of other (better, IMO) options in the effort to protect privacy.

That's right. Because they never dream that these things will ever apply to "THEM". They have an enemy list and assume that the all knowing all seeing powerful government will only turn it's searchlight onto the approved enemy group. Never on themselves.

Reasonable Man--again I agree with you--I am always distressed to see how marketing programs programs pop up items about which I am not interested.

Seems to me this is a significant point--and kudos to reasonable man for pointing it out. The internet is a major threat to our individual liberties. Wether it be in providing us vendors or placing us in predetermined boxes.

While I might disagree with reasonable man's political choices, i damn sure agree on the underlying invasion of our privacy.

TimAre you expressing an opinion? Can it be construed with or without twisting to be politically incorrect?Have you signed a petition? Did you say anything on your face book page that anyone anywhere can use against you?

Whether in Ohio, where I live now, or in Virginia, where I lived for many years, I've always had more than the two parties as options on the ballot. So it doesn't follow that if I refused to vote for Bush, I therefore must have voted for Kerry.

I never expect privacy on the internet. In my previous business, by law, all of my emails were screened before they were allowed to be sent. It was illegal for me to use a private/non company email for businesses.

If you don't want everyone in the world to know about it, don't send it in an email.

However, if the US Gov wants to access my g mail account, have at it. They will be incredibly bored. I use that one for shopping and it is basically full of exciting emails about yarn, quilting, sewing patterns and deals from Amazon.com.

We just bought some toilets from Amazon for my hubby's biz. Free shipping with Amazon PRIME. Yahooo!. Now Amazon thinks I'm interested in wax toilet rings and toilet seats. I think it is time to look at flower seeds or fabric or something so that the side bar on the internet will be full of pretty flowers instead of toilets :-)

Roger J. said...Reasonable man--we can agree on this proposition, I think. People on the left are equally at risk as are people on the right. I read your comment as concurrence--so we are into the realm of trying fix things, and unfortunately, I have no easy fixes. I think the ACLU is a good thing but there isnt enough of them. And I really dont know how to rectify the situation

They pick and choose what cases they will accept. Usually high profile and usually ones that will place their cause in the best light. When the last time nazis asked for a permit to march in Skokie, Illinois and were refused they asked the ACLU to represent them-the nazis. The ACLU refused. One lawyer who worked for the ACLU quit the organization and agreed to represent the nazis. He got them their permit.

First, I hope they got warrants where needed. Nobody seems certain that is the case.But, there has to be some sense behind the people asking for the warrants.Supposedly, Kelley asked Shirtless to look into these weird emails. No threat was detected, but there was some indication the emailer knew the travel plans of Gen Petraeus.

Well, once they figured out the emails came from someone who had access to Petraeus, they should have stopped their "investigation". Instead, they continued reading the salacious emails.

I don't think it should be that easy for the FBI to convince themselves they have to read someone's emails.

Because you either didn’t vote at all or voted for a third-party or write-in candidate. At least that’s what you stated prior to the election. Had something to do with Romney not being trustworthy on abortion.

Because you either didn’t vote at all or voted for a third-party or write-in candidate. At least that’s what you stated prior to the election. Had something to do with Romney not being trustworthy on abortion.

Sin of omission?

Elaine:

I mean this without any rancor, but that's nonsense.

First, let us assume, as your statement seems to, that Romney represented some significant improvement over Obama on these questions of violations of the Constitution. Does it follow, as you assert, that unless one votes for Romney, one is "responsible" for the election of Mr. Obama?

No, that does not follow.

That would only follow if you could show that my vote for Romney in Ohio would have tipped the election. As the results make manifest, it would not have done so.

Further, insofar as Mr. Romney disqualified himself from getting votes he might have gotten--say, from me and those think like me--then the responsibility is his. He made choices to seek votes where he did--and not seek other votes (such as mine). If that strategy failed him, that's on him, not me.

But let's return to the assumption that Romney represented a significant improvement over Obama on respecting the Constitution. Evidence?

Did Romney say he would end the kill list, or the invasions of privacy? Did he say anything about reining in the TSA? The intelligence services?

I missed it. But I do know he favored one change: a resumption of torture.

Finally--insofar as my original argument had to do with moral responsibility ("you own this"), then let's examine the underlying assumption of your argument, which is often made, that voting for a third-party candidate is always an "irresponsible" choice. Why would this be so?

It seems to me, this presupposes that voters (and I guess non-voters who could have voted) are personally responsible for the outcome. I don't believe that. How can this be true? You and I cast a single vote. Even if the election hinges on a single vote, no one is actually elected with a single vote. Obama didn't win by 1-0, he won on a huge collection of individual votes, and however likely any outcome may be, it's not certain.

Three days before the election, the odds of Virgil Goode, the Constitution Party candidate, or Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, being elected president were vanishingly small. I assume no one actually predicted they'd win. But that's not the same as impossible. I can think of several, extraordinarily unlikely scenarios that could have happened in our universe. What if someone produced evidence, right before the election, of some massive disqualification on the part of both Obama and Romney? Or some catastrophe brings the death of both candidates for president and vice president?

Terribly unlikely? Of course. But not impossible. Therefore no one can say, as one must say to sustain your argument, that a third-party candidate "can't win" or "won't win."

My point is, I am not responsible for determining the "winner." I don't have that power, and it's a fool who thinks he does.

What I am responsible for, is my vote. If the one I voted for wins, then I share a responsibility for the power he exercise, to the extent I endorsed him.

If you are contemplating doing something illegal, immoral, shameful, or otherwise something you wish to keep to yourself, it would seem reasonable that you shouldn't publish it, mail it, phone it, or shout it out in the street.

The idea of someone breaking a law and then depending on the government to protect him by enforcing a law against someone else is kind of amusing.

Subtle I can usually get, but your argument seems more sophistic than purely subtle.

Anyway, saying the only thing you’re responsible for is your vote seems incredibly naïve, if not disingenuous.

Aren’t we responsible for the views we express that may influence other voters to not support the candidate who offers to at least limit an evil (I’m thinking of abortion here)?

Well, on the latter point, sure; I wasn't meaning to deny responsibility for those other things, only to make a different point regarding responsibility for ones vote, in relation to the overall victory or defeat.

I'll say it again: no one has a positive moral obligation to vote for anyone. Ever.

If you believe otherwise, would you do me the courtesy of giving me your basis for saying so? Because as I think about the sources of right and wrong that I rely on, I find no basis for such an obligation.

I'm not saying you, but there are those who claimed, during this campaign, that good people were bound to suspend their own consciences, and "hold their noses" and vote, for the greater good. This was the argument for Romney in many cases, and I can imagine some on the left making that argument for Obama as well.

Heck, if some of the "Obama Progressives" I mentioned would respond that way, I could respect that, if they would either point to when they railed against Obama's hostility to the progressive values they claim to hold dear, or else at least admit they should have.

But--as you might have guessed, I don't buy the argument that one should ignore ones conscience "for the greater good." Greater good, according to whom?

One of the reasons I made my point about the "Obama Progressives" is because, overlooked in all this, is the effect ones vote has on oneself--namely, ones soul. Casting votes you don't believe in, for causes you don't support, is caustic to ones self-respect and the things one values above all. Is it really a good thing for us all to become so cynical? Is that the greater good?

Other people reconciled a vote for Obama or Romney with the values they profess. Good for them. If they can explain it, let them do so. I don't accuse them of bad conscience.

But I won't join them in a bad conscience, and I firmly reject the notion that I'm obliged to do so.

To put it another way, if Mr. Romney really wanted my vote (meaning all those who found him wanting for the reasons I did), it's his fault for choosing not to do what it takes to get it. That choice is his responsibility, not mine.

If it's true that I failed in some way, in a moral responsibility, by not voting for Romney, then what, precisely, is that responsibility I failed in? Is it not that I was somehow bound to vote for him?

That's the problem with your argument. I don't see how you can argue for such an obligation.

Especially since, on the question of Constitutional protections, you haven't even shown that Romney was even notionally "better," as opposed to their stances on abortion.

Re: progressives being upset w/Obama re: liberal issues one must expand their horizons and visit a liberal blog, like kos, where many libs rail against Obama re: privacy issues, Gitmo, rendition, poverty, etc.

I was against the Afghan escalation and being in Afghanistan period and have said so at this blog.

But therein lies the rub since this blog is 90/10 conservative blog posters and Althouse posts over 90% anti-Obama, liberal threads and over 90% pro Willard, con threads the past (2) years, no need for liberals to pile on w/more Obama/liberal negativity as Althouse has that covered every which way but loose.

And now that Obama has easily been re-elected, expect 100% negative articles/threads re: Obama.

The yin/yang of liberal/conservative blogs.

>

On a related point, Atheists have it easy as they don't have religion interfering w/their political thought process. No, they just have to use logic! :)

And re: electing saints er perfect candidates for president, there was a presidential study, and don't we all like studies, done in the mid-70s that determined only (2) American president hadn't cheated on their wives or had lady companions a la James Buchanan. Truman and Ford.

Indeed, forgiveness is a virtue, or so I hear constantly from self-righteous cons.

Again, being a lib at a 90/10 con blog is very entertaining, especially after Willard's crushing defeat that many cons, including Althouse, were about 99.9% certain would not happen.

Yea, not a lot of con rational thinking occurred at this blog the past year.

First, this thread is about attacks on "privacy" and my comments, which you cited, were about assaults on the Constitution.

I said twice now that Romney was no better than Obama--and if Obama did end torture as he said, then Romney was worse, because he favored returning to torture.

Do you have any basis for contesting what I just said? Can you show that Romney was any better on these questions? Because that was what my comments were about that you keyed on.

Now, back to abortion. "Of course" Romney was better? I suppose in the sense that a murderer of one person is "better" than a serial killer, but that's a strange notion of better.

Romney's record on abortion is terrible. He endorsed it on demand when he ran against Kennedy and then--totally coincidental to his shifting to a different electorate, that is, GOP primaries--he had a "conversion"! Just as he had a conversion on gun rights, gay rights (he tried to out gay-rights Kennedy), being Reaganite, etc.

But even with his supposed conversion, he still endorsed abortion--just some abortions, not all.

That's not my idea of "pro-life."

When I vote, I prefer not to vote for anyone who endorses intrinsic evil; and if I can't find that person, I choose the one who endorses less.

Now, I ask you again: do you claim that pro-lifers had a positive obligation to vote for Romney? If so, other than your own belief in that, can you cite some larger justification for that assertion?

Because your argument sure seems premised on precisely such a claim of a positive obligation I described. Do you actually make that claim, or not?

If , as you seem to believe, Romney is no better on pro-life issues than Obama, then one would be a fool to have voted for him.

But I do think he’s better. As governor of Massachusetts, he vetoed expanded access to the "morning after" abortion pill and vetoed a bill allowing embryonic stem cell research. For me, those two things alone put him in diametric opposition to Obama.

To me, it seems self-evident that, if by my vote for one of the candidates, there is the likelihood that the number of abortions will decrease, or even just not increase, it would be incumbent upon me to vote for that candidate.

If I don’t cast that vote, I am doing nothing to try to limit the evil, and therefore not doing my part in fulfilling Divine Providence. Does that work as the source of the obligation?

The House science committee is demanding the White House explain why top administration officials are using secret e-mail accounts and other techniques to conceal their taxpayer-paid activities from public oversight.